Junk-food advertisers, in the guise of the Sensible Food
Policy Coalition, have attacked the voluntary guidelines as an assault
on the First Amendment, a point debunked by top Constitutional experts, and claimed that adopting the voluntary guidelines would result in job losses, based on a flimsy industry “study.”

[I]t would be a real setback for children’s health if the
Administration backed down on strong guidelines for food marketing to
children, especially given the transparently specious arguments
of junk-food advertisers…. Denying the science on food marketing and
childhood obesity is like denying the science on global warming or
evolution.

But the food industry is dug in on this one. For example, a reader
sent me this letter from Tom Forsythe, vice president of corporate communications at General Mills (excerpts follow with my comments in brackets):

Your email notes that we have lobbied against the
Interagency Working Group (IWG) proposal. That is correct. We have
serious concerns about the IWG proposal.

Our most advertised product is cereal — and we stand behind it. Cereal is one of the healthiest breakfast choices you can make…. If it
is a General Mills cereal, it will also be a good or excellent source of
whole grains.

Childhood obesity is a serious issue — and General Mills wants to be
part of the solution. But if the issue is obesity, cereal should
perhaps be advertised more, not less.

You can be assured than food and beverage companies have studied
every letter, comma, and period in the proposal. We know what it says,
and what it does not.

For example, we know that 88 of the 100 most commonly consumed foods
and beverages could not be marketed under the IWG guidelines. The list
of “banned” items under the guidelines would include essentially all
cereals, salads, whole wheat bread, yogurt, canned vegetables, and a
host of other items universally recognized as healthy [i’m not at all sure this is true].

Despite the characterizations used to advance them, the IWG
guidelines would not be voluntary, in our view. The IWG guidelines are
advanced by two of the agencies most responsible for regulating the food
industry, as well as the agency most responsible for regulating
advertising. Ignoring their “voluntary guidance” would not be an option
for most companies.

Regulation has already been threatened (even demanded) should
companies choose not to comply — and litigation would inevitably follow.

The IWG guidelines also conflict with most existing government
programs and definitions relative to food. For example, many products
that meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s current definition of
“healthy” could not be advertised under the IWG guidelines [it would be interesting to see examples].

Many products included in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program fail the IWG standards, as do
most products encouraged and subsidized under the USDA’s Women, Infants, and Children Feeding Program (WIC) [if so, this is a sad commentary on what we encourage low-income mothers and children to eat].

Finally, your email suggests companies should focus on providing
feedback via public comment. We agree. We have reviewed every detail
of the IWG proposal — and we remain opposed, as our public comment
explains.

My interpretation: If food companies are this upset, the guidelines must be pretty good.

Companies have the right to sell whatever they like. But they should not have the right to market it as healthy or to kids.

Tell the IWG you support their guidelines. Tell the White House to protect the guidelines. Now, please.